Enterprise AI
New York Times Sues Brave Over AI Scraping and Paywall Bypass
Tribune papers join a complaint accusing the browser maker of operating an “AI fence” that resells paywalled journalism to Anthropic, Perplexity, xAI and other AI companies.
The New York Times Company’s lawsuit against Brave Software is a copyright infringement case that accuses the browser maker of compiling a search index of more than 30 billion webpages by scraping paywalled news and reselling that content to generative AI companies including Anthropic, Perplexity, xAI, Mistral and Cohere.
The complaint, filed Nov. 2, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, accuses Brave of compiling a search index of more than 30 billion webpages by scraping content with a crawler that did not identify itself or allow publishers to block it. The Times complaint states that Brave is the supplier, dealer and distributor of stolen copyrighted content for its own users and for many of the most prominent generative AI companies, including Anthropic, Perplexity, Mistral, xAI and Cohere.
A second complaint, filed the same day by Daily News LP, Chicago Tribune Company, LLC and Orlando Sentinel Communications Company, LLC, describes Brave as an “AI fence” that sells stolen content to third parties. The two cases ask the court to address Brave’s paywall-blocking feature and its search API licensing deals with AI companies, according to Ars Technica.
What exactly did the lawsuits allege?
The Times complaint says Brave’s “Paywall blocker” browser setting bypasses paywalls and provides paywalled content to users, while also replacing publishers’ ads with its own. The complaint says the feature undermines both subscription revenue and advertising revenue, and that Brave profited from content it did not license.
The complaint also says Brave’s Search API provides real-time access to the scraped index for AI companies, which use it for training models or responding to queries. The complaint names Anthropic, Perplexity, Mistral, xAI and Cohere as companies that relied on the API.
How did Brave build its search index?
The complaint says Brave compiled a search index of over 30 billion webpages by scraping content using an unidentified crawler that did not identify itself or allow publishers to block it. That detail matters because standard search engines typically identify their crawlers and honor robots.txt files, which allow publishers to decline indexing.
The lawsuit says Brave’s approach prevented publishers from exercising technical controls over their content. The complaint frames the crawler as a deliberate method of avoiding publisher consent, not an accident of web crawling.
The Times sent cease-and-desist letters to Brave CEO Brendan Eich in August 2025 and April 2026, according to the complaint. The lawsuit says Brave did not respond to either letter.
What happened before the lawsuit was filed?
The complaint describes two attempts by The New York Times to resolve the dispute outside court. Both letters were sent to Brave CEO Brendan Eich, and the complaint says neither received a response.
- August 2025: The New York Times sends a cease-and-desist letter to Brave CEO Brendan Eich.
- April 2026: The New York Times sends a second cease-and-desist letter.
- Nov. 2, 2026: The New York Times Company files Case No. 1:26-cv-09549 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- Nov. 2, 2026: Daily News LP, Chicago Tribune Company, LLC and Orlando Sentinel Communications Company, LLC file Case No. 1:26-cv-09554 in the same court.
How does the second complaint differ from The Times’ case?
The Tribune papers’ complaint uses the “AI fence” metaphor to describe Brave’s role. It says Brave acts both like a burglar that misappropriates the content of publishers and an AI fence that sells stolen content to third parties. The Times complaint uses similar language, calling Brave the supplier, dealer and distributor of stolen copyrighted content.
| Case number | Plaintiffs | Core allegation |
|---|---|---|
| 1:26-cv-09549 | The New York Times Company | Brave built a search index by scraping content and resells it to AI companies; its paywall blocker bypasses paywalls. |
| 1:26-cv-09554 | Daily News LP, Chicago Tribune Company, LLC, Orlando Sentinel Communications Company, LLC | Brave acts as an “AI fence” that sells stolen content to third parties. |
The cases share the same defendant and the same court, but the plaintiff groups differ. The first case is brought by The New York Times Company alone. The second is brought by Daily News LP, Chicago Tribune Company, LLC and Orlando Sentinel Communications Company, LLC.
Which AI companies are implicated in the complaint?
The complaint names five AI companies as customers of the Brave Search API: Anthropic, Perplexity, Mistral, xAI and Cohere. According to the complaint, those companies used the API for training models or responding to queries, giving them real-time access to scraped news content.
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Steven Lieberman, said the AI companies knew they had no right to the content. “AI giants are now desperate to avoid getting caught red-handed stealing news from publishers, so Brave Software is selling them a back door to the journalism they know they have no right to,” Lieberman said in a statement reported by Ars Technica. “Buying stolen goods secondhand doesn’t make them legitimate.”
AI giants are now desperate to avoid getting caught red-handed stealing news from publishers, so Brave Software is selling them a back door to the journalism they know they have no right to. Buying stolen goods secondhand doesn’t make them legitimate.Steven Lieberman, attorney for the plaintiffs
What does the “Ask Brave” feature have to do with the case?
The complaint says Brave’s “Ask Brave” AI feature and API have reproduced substantial portions of paywalled articles. In one instance, the complaint says, the feature reproduced roughly 87% of a paywalled story verbatim. The complaint cites that reproduction rate as evidence that Brave is distributing protected content rather than providing search snippets.
A reproduction rate of roughly 87% of a paywalled story goes well beyond the brief excerpts that search engines typically display. Copyright law protects against unauthorized reproduction of substantial portions of a work, and the complaint argues that Brave’s output crosses that line.
What does this mean for publishers and AI companies?
The lawsuit puts a spotlight on the intermediate layer of the AI supply chain. Instead of suing only model developers, publishers are now targeting the data infrastructure companies that sell access to scraped content. The complaint says Brave has made more than $100 million from that activity while publishers received nothing.
The outcome could affect how search APIs are marketed to AI companies. If the court finds that Brave’s index was built through unlawful scraping, the companies that licensed the API could face legal exposure for using content they did not obtain directly from publishers.
What has The New York Times said about the case?
Graham James, a New York Times spokesperson, said in a statement reported by The Verge: “While we believe in the ethical and responsible use and development of AI, Brave has flouted established copyright law and ignored repeated requests by The Times to stop its infringing conduct.”
James also said: “We filed this lawsuit to hold Brave accountable for stealing our content to power its own products and to provide it to some of the most prominent and well resourced generative AI companies in the world.”
How does this case relate to other publisher lawsuits against AI companies?
The New York Times has pursued separate copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft over the use of its articles in training data and model outputs. The Brave case is distinct because it targets the distribution channel, not the model developer. The complaint says Brave compiled the index and then sold access to it, making the browser company a middleman in the AI content supply chain.
What happens next in the litigation?
The two complaints are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Times’ case is docketed as Case No. 1:26-cv-09549, and the Tribune papers’ case is docketed as Case No. 1:26-cv-09554. Both were filed on Nov. 2, 2026.
The court will weigh the plaintiffs’ requests to shut down Brave’s paywall blocker and end its deals with AI firms, as Ars Technica reported. The litigation joins a series of disputes between publishers and AI companies over the unlicensed use of news content, and the decisions in these cases could shape how search engines and AI data providers handle paywalls and publisher controls.
Frequently asked
What did The New York Times accuse Brave of doing?
The New York Times accused Brave of bypassing paywalls, replacing publisher ads with its own, and reselling scraped news content to AI companies including Anthropic, Perplexity, xAI, Mistral and Cohere.
Who are the plaintiffs in the two lawsuits?
The New York Times Company filed Case No. 1:26-cv-09549. Daily News LP, Chicago Tribune Company, LLC and Orlando Sentinel Communications Company, LLC filed Case No. 1:26-cv-09554.
How much money did the complaint say Brave made from copied content?
The complaint says Brave made more than $100 million by copying and reselling publishers’ work without consent or permission, while publishers received nothing.
Did The New York Times try to stop Brave before suing?
The complaint says The Times sent cease-and-desist letters to Brave CEO Brendan Eich in August 2025 and April 2026, and that Brave did not respond.
Which AI companies are named in the complaint?
The complaint names Anthropic, Perplexity, Mistral, xAI and Cohere as companies that used Brave’s Search API.
Sources
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York — The complaint says Brave is the supplier, dealer and distributor of stolen copyrighted content for its own users and for AI companies including Anthropic, Perplexity, Mistral, xAI and Cohere, and that Brave has made more than $100 million from the conduct.
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York — The Tribune papers’ complaint describes Brave as both a burglar and an AI fence that sells stolen content to third parties.
- Ars Technica — Ars Technica reported that The New York Times and other newspaper companies sued Brave, alleging the browser maker illegally bypasses paywalls and sells stolen news content to AI companies.
- The Verge — The Verge reported that Graham James, a New York Times spokesperson, said Brave flouted copyright law and ignored requests to stop infringing conduct.